ASA Adjudication on Unilever UK Ltd

Ad

A TV ad promoted the website Floraheartage.com in conjunction with the Flora pro.activ range. The presenter, Gloria Hunniford, stated “What if you could forget about your real age? I do. And think about your heart age instead. Go to floraheartage.com. Tell them just a few things about yourself and they'll work out your heart age for you. It's a good measure of how healthy your heart is.” The website address and the words “age”, “blood pressure” “and diabetes” flashed on screen. Gloria continued “And now for the good news. Enjoying Flora pro.active every day could significantly lower your cholesterol and in turn that could lower your heart age. As for your real age, just make it up. Flora pro.active actively combats cholesterol.”

Issue

Five viewers challenged whether the claim "its a good measure of how healthy your heart is" could be substantiated, because:

1. one viewer did not believe the heart age website was operated by medically trained professionals; and

2. five viewers believed the website would always produce enhanced ages to scare vulnerable consumers into purchasing the Flora pro.activ range.

BCAP TV Code

Response

1. Unilever UK Ltd stated the Heart Age Tool was an interactive online tool, which calculated the hypothetical age of a persons heart by inputting risk factors such as age, cholesterol, blood pressure and smoking, which were assessed and scored to obtain a Heart Age.  They stated the Heart Age Tool was developed through a collaboration between Unilever and the Boston University Statistics and Consulting Unit and been developed by scientists, building on well-established, peer-reviewed and generally accepted scientific research.  They stated it was not necessary for it to be operated by medically trained professionals to function properly and effectively.

Clearcast sought advice from their medical nutrition consultant, who was confident that the heart age calculator was a medically sound tool for assessing heart health.  He confirmed that the online tool assessed factors which contributed to heart health, that it was presented in an unbiased way and the advice it gave on the value of cutting saturated fats and using cholesterol-lowering products would be beneficial to heart health.  Clearcast did not feel that the ad suggested that the website was operated by medical professionals, but that it was a good measure as to how healthy the respondents heart was.  They said they felt confident approving the ad, based on the response that they had received from their medical consultant.

2. Unilever UK Ltd stated the Heart Age Tool was designed to motivate people to make positive changes to their diet and lifestyle and used personal information about health, diet and lifestyle to determine heart age.  They said that a persons heart age could be higher or lower than their age, depending on the individual risk factors, and that an elevated heart age indicated that there were one or more CVD (cardiovascular disease) risk factors that were above what would be considered optimal heart health.  They explained that the Heart Age Tool would only recommend Flora pro.activ if an individual had elevated cholesterol.  They pointed out that it was well publicised in health journals that the majority of the UK population had a higher CVD risk factor than was desirable and they strongly believed that the Heart Age Tool was a good measure of heart health, based on credible, established and peer-reviewed scientific research.

Clearcast stated that they were confident that the heart age tool did not always produce enhanced ages.  They said this was based on advice from their consultant, who had played around with the website to get an idea of the results, and their own research, which they said verified that the calculator did not always produce enhanced ages.  They did not feel that the ad was intended to scare vulnerable consumers into purchasing pro.activ products.  They felt the ad made clear that the product worked by helping cholesterol levels, rather than helping other factors contributing to heart health, and said that that helping cholesterol levels in turn could lower heart age and therefore the perimeters and limitations were clearly set out.  They stated they would expect the website to recommend Flora products, as it and the ad were produced by Flora, but the viewer would be clearly aware of heavy branding in the ad and website, and they felt vulnerable consumers would not be misled.  In addition, they said their consultant had assured them that the products recommended were appropriate and advisable for the heart age results given.

Assessment

1. Not upheld

The ASA understood that the Heart Age Tool was developed by scientists with expertise in the area of CVD and who had undertaken research in the major factors which contributed to CVD.  We understood that the online tool was not manned by medically trained professionals, but functioned automatically by calculating heart age based on users answers to questions about their heart health, age and weight, whether they smoked, whether they had been ever told by a doctor that they had high cholesterol or high blood pressure and whether their parents had had heart problems.  We considered that users would understand that the results of the online assessment were automatically generated, based on their responses to questions about important factors relating to heart risk factors, and which would give an idea of their general heart health.  We considered users were unlikely to understand that the results provided a highly personalised heart health profile, established for that individual, by a medically trained professional, who was familiar with the users personal medical history.

Because the tool was developed by experienced, medically trained professionals and used well-known CVD risk factors to assess heart age, and because we considered users would understand that the results provided a general indication of the users heart health, we concluded that the claim "its a good measure of how healthy your heart is" was not misleading.

On this point, we investigated the ad under CAP (Broadcast) TV Advertising Standards Code rules 5.1.1 (Misleading advertising), 5.2.1, 5.2.2 (Claims) and 8.1.2(b) (Medicines, treatments, health claims and nutrition), but did not find it in breach.

2. Not upheld

We noted that, to calculate heart age, the Heart Age Test looked at a users responses to questions about major factors which contributed to CVD and we considered that those factors were relevant to assessing heart age.  We understood that a user who was not affected by CVD risk factors, i.e. who had normal risk factors, was likely to have a heart age that was the same as or very close to their age (younger or older), whereas users who might have, or have had problems, relating to high cholesterol or high blood pressure, a family history of heart problems, or who were smokers or overweight, were more likely to have an increased heart age.  We carried out our own tests, which supported this model.  We considered that users with increased risk factors were likely to expect their heart age would be increased.  We considered that most viewers would understand that the Heart Age Tool would not produce a highly specialised heart health profile for every user, but  provide a general indication of heart health and highlight the risk factors that could affect a users heart health.  We also considered that users would expect a heavily branded website for a product to recommend the benefits of that product and did not conclude that users would be misled on that basis.

Because we were satisfied that the Heart Age Tool based its results on relevant CVD risk factors, and did not always produce enhanced ages, as alleged by the viewers who complained, we concluded that the ad was not misleading.

On this point, we investigated the ad under CAP (Broadcast) TV Advertising Standards Code rules 5.1.1 (Misleading advertising), 5.2.1, 5.2.2 (Claims) and 8.1.2(b) (Medicines, treatments, health claims and nutrition), but did not find it in breach.

Action

No further action necessary.

Adjudication of the ASA Council (Broadcast)